Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Royal Palaces of Abomey

Benin
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Legal framework
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Serious degradation of nearly 2/3 of the mud-brick constructions

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

- Absence of national legislation for cultural heritage protection;

- Absence of delimitation and protection measures for the buffer zone of the property;

- Management plan not yet updated;

- Serious degradation of nearly 2/3 of the mud-brick constructions.

Corrective Measures for the property

a) finalize the national legislative and administrative mechanism for the protection of Cultural heritage in Benin,

b) to establish new boundarieis of the property and clearly define the buffer zone which aims to protect its integrity,

c) evaluate and update the conservation and management plan of the property,

d) pursue restoration and conservation activities to cover at least half of the remaining structural components of the property considered to be in a serious deterioration

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 5 (from 1985-1997)
Total amount approved : 113,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**

Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission in May 2004.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

Following the conclusions of the World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS evaluation mission in May 2004, the Committee, in its Decision 28 COM 15A.14, encouraged the State Party to implement a number of measures that would enable the property to be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 2007. These measures included setting up a national mechanism for cultural heritage protection, the establishment of a buffer zone around the property, an update of the management plan, and the continuation of conservation actions for the protection of the last vestiges of mud-brick construction. The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee visited the site in November 2004 to evaluate the state of conservation, and was informed of the preparation of the cultural heritage law that would be submitted to the Parliament for vote. He seized the opportunity of this visit to remind the Benin authorities of the urgent need to implement the measures that had been recommended by the Committee, and reported on his visit to the President of the Republic of Benin.

On 10 March 2005, the State Party submitted a request for international assistance to implement the recommendations of the Committee’s Decision 28 COM 15A.14. The requested financial assistance will enable the State Party to carry out the delimitation of the buffer zone and to sign a municipal decree regulating development and construction around the property, to evaluate the management plan which had expired and to organise a technical expert mission. This technical mission, composed of specialists of mud-brick heritage conservation, will develop the future conservation project for the last vestiges of mud-brick construction. The State Party intends to invite the Getty Conservation Institute, CRATerre-EAG and the World Heritage Centre to participate in this mission.

Furthermore, from 5 to 13 April 2005, the World Heritage Centre organised a technical assistance mission in the framework of the cooperation agreement between Italy and UNESCO, aimed at alleviating the site from its endangered situation. The objective of this mission was to assist the State Party in developing a project for the promotion of sustainable tourism, with a view to increasing income and financing some of the costs for the maintenance and conservation work. The project proposal will be submitted to different funding institutions. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.13
Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15A.14, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Encourages the State Party of Benin to pursue the search for funding in order to implement all the measures defined by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004);

4. Invites the international community to support the State Party in its efforts towards removing the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

5. Decides to maintain the Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
29 COM 8C.2
New World Heritage List in Danger

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-05/29.COM/7A and WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add),

2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

  • Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.20)
  • Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.21)
  • Tipasa (Algeria) (Decision 29 COM 7A.16)
  • Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.28)
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) (Decision 29 COM 7A.13)
  • Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic)(Decision 29 COM 7A.1)
  • Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) (Decision 29 COM 7A.2)
  • Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) (Decision 29 COM 7A.3)
  • Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Virunga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Garamba National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Salonga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Abu Mena (Egypt) (Decision 29 COM 7A.17)
  • Simien National Park (Ethiopia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.4)
  • Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (Decision 28 COM 7A.29)
  • Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) (Decision 29 COM 7A.12)
  • Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.22)
  • Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.9)
  • Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Islamic Republic of Iran) (Decision 29 COM 7A.23)
  • Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Iraq) (Decision 29 COM 7A.18)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem) (Decision 29 COM 7A.31)
  • Kathmandu Valley (Nepal ) (Decision 29 COM 7A.24)
  • Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) (Decision 29 COM 7A.6)
  • Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.25)
  • Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (Decision 29 COM 7A.30)
  • Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (Decision 29 COM 7A.26)
  • Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (Decision 29 COM 7A.7)
  • Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.8)
  • Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) (Decision 28 COM 7A.15)
  • Everglades National Park (United States of America) (Decision 29 COM 7A.10)
  • Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) (Decision 29 COM 7A.19)

Draft decision: 29 COM 7A.13

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15A.14, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Encourages the State Party to pursue the search for funding in order to implement all the measures defined by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004);

4. Invites the international community to support the State Party in its efforts towards removing the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

5. Decides to maintain the Royal Palaces of Abomey on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Report year: 2005
Benin
Date of Inscription: 1985
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(iv)
Danger List (dates): 1985-2007
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top